Wrap reveals cost-effectiveness of recycling schemes

However, two stream co-mingled collections, where paper is kept separate, have similar net costs to kerbside schemes.

Kerbside sorting is where materials are sorted by type into different compartments of the collection vehicle.

Single-stream co-mingled schemes are where materials are collected in a single-compartment vehicle and sorted at a materials recovery facility (MRF).

The report found that the net costs of co-mingled schemes are heavily affected by materials recovery facility (MRF) fees, which can vary from £21 per tonne without glass to £28 per tonne with glass, and the costs of kerbside sorting by income from the sale of materials.

A variation in MRF fees of plus or minus £15 per tonne would increase or decrease the net cost per household by between £1.75 and £3.50 per year, the report found.

The report found that the size of the containers people were given for recycling their household rubbish determined how much recycling they did. A weekly collection would also maximise yield.

Wrap acknowledged that different areas had different needs and there was no such thing as a “one size fits all” best scheme.

The organisation said co-mingled collections could be the best option for inner city areas where on-street parking prevented kerbside sorting and the abundance of multi-occupancy houses made it difficult to store many recycling boxes.

Wrap director for local government services Phillip Ward said: “It would be wrong to assume that one type of collection scheme is always going to be cheaper or produce better quality material than another.”

“For any recycling scheme to be successful, it needs to be easy to use, reliable, flexible and to manage health and safety risks.”

Local Authority Recycling Advisory Committee (Larac) chairman Lee Marshall said the research was useful in that it provided a better base of information on which Local Authorities could make decisions about which type of recycling scheme to adopt.

“I would urge our members to look more closely at their agreements with MRF operations to see if there is room to get more value back from the sale of materials,” he said.

“Because there is not one scheme to fit all, our members should now look at how to make their chosen recycling schemes as efficient and cost-effective as possible.”

Download the report here.

Popular Articles